silhouette

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output behavior (pale background with purple mask contour, ask the agent to verify visually) and the neural-net method used, which is meaningful context. But it omits failure behavior, what happens when segmentation fails, and any performance/permission characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the visual-verification note are front-loaded, followed by a compact view/method reference. Every line contributes; only the pale-background/purple-contour sentence is slightly padded relative to the rest.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool does and returns, which it largely does (measurements plus a visual overlay). It is close to complete for a 2-parameter tool; the main omission is error/failure handling when no object is detected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning and it does so thoroughly: the view syntax ('path', 'path|N', 'path|0', 'path|x1,y1,x2,y2') is spelled out with the meaning of each form, and all three method enum values are defined with the scenarios they fit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific operation (separate object from background) and a concrete measurement set (bounding box, proportions, parts, holes, key heights). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like contour and parts because it enumerates the silhouette metrics it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives mode-selection guidance for the method parameter ('simple' only for uniform background, 'auto' for shadows/reflections/complex backgrounds), which is real when-to-use advice. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick silhouette over sibling tools such as contour or parts, leaving tool selection implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.